But what about those 34 MPs? In every
party, the problem the caucus usually has with proportional representation is a
simple, selfish, one. Sure, it will help us in regions where we did badly. But in
our own stronghold regions, it will help other parties. What will happen to my
seat?

Caucus
opposition stopped Pierre Trudeau

Opposition in a caucus to proportional
representation is an old story.

In 1980 Pierre Trudeau's problem with western under-representation in his government was extreme: he had
only two MPs from the four western provinces, both from Manitoba. Trudeau would
have had sixteen more western MPs with proportional representation. In its 1980
Speech from the Throne, Trudeau’s newly reelected Liberal government promised
to appoint a committee to study the electoral system. One of the very few promises he could
not keep.

Opposition among Liberal
MPs was intense. (Ironically, René Lévesque had the identical problem as Quebec
premier at the same time: after being re-elected in 1980, Lévesque started to
implement proportional representation for Quebec, and got part-way down the
road when his caucus vetoed it.
That was a time when all politicians understood the problem. Joe Clark had won
a “wrong-winner” election in 1979 with fewer votes than the Liberals. In
Quebec, Parti Quebecois voters had been cheated in the elections of 1970 and
1973.)

So here’s the practical question. Who
would those 65 or 66 Liberal MPs have been? And would any of the 34 actually
elected have lost out?

Who
would have won?

First, we would still have 213 (or at
least 204) local MPs across Canada, from larger ridings, and most sitting MPs
would still have won a local seat.

As to the new 32 regional MPs, both of these models are for personal proportional representation. So we can’t really
know for sure who they would have been, because voters can vote for the
candidate they want, both for local MP and for regional “top-up” MP.

But we can assume that those
candidates who got the most votes locally in 2011 would likely have gotten the
most votes regionally. Note, however, that 90% of voters say they would elect
more women MPs if given the choice. So we can also assume that women candidates
would have done better than they did in 2011.

In Ontario maybe 22 more Liberal MPs
would have been elected, including regions where Liberal voters were left
voiceless.

Two in Hamilton-Niagara: maybe Hamilton city
councillor, home builder and environmentalist Dave Braden, and Niagara Falls lawyer Bev Hodgson,
or former Ontario minister Marie Bountrogianni or former City of St. Catharines councillor Andrew
Gill.

One in Halton: Connie Laurin-Bowie or Max Khan? One
in Durham Region: Mark Holland or Dan McTeague?

Two in Waterloo-Brant-Haldimand: Andrew Telegdi and
Karen Redman? One in London—Perth—Huron: Glen Pearson or Doug Ferguson? One in
Windsor-Sarnia: Matt Daudlin or Gayle Stucke? Two from Northern Ontario: Anthony
Rota and Roger Valley or Carol Hartman or Ken Boshcoff?

Three more from Toronto: maybe Martha Hall Findlay, Michael Ignatieff,
and Yasmin Ratansi or Rob Oliphant or
Maria Minna? Two more from York Region: Bryon Wilfert and Mario Ferri or Karen
Mock?

One more from Ottawa: David Bertschi,
Anita Vandenbeld or Julie Bourgeois? One more from Kingston—Peterborough: Kim Rudd or Betsy McGregor? One more in
Barrie--Guelph--Owen Sound: Steve Clarke or Kimberley Love?

Would any of Ontario’s actual 11 Liberal MPs have
lost? Highly unlikely.

In the West maybe eight more Liberal
MPs would have been elected.

In Vancouver, maybe Sukh Dhaliwal or Pam
Dhanoa, Taleeb Noormohamed or Dan Veniez, maybe Ujjal Dosanjh. In Calgary, maybe
Cam Stewart or Janice Kinch or Jennifer Pollock. In Edmonton, likely Mary MacDonald,
whose predecessor Anne McLellan has supported PR. In southern Alberta, maybe Norm
Boucher; maybe Karen Young in northern Alberta. In Manitoba, maybe Anita
Neville or Terry Duguid. And that’s when a lot of Liberals stayed home in 2011.
The current four Liberal MPs should all remain.

In Quebec maybe four more Liberal MPs
would have been elected.

On the south shore, maybe former MP Alexandra
Mendès. In Estrie—Centre-du-Québec—Mauricie, maybe former minister Denis Paradis,
or Trois-Rivières former MNA and school principal Francine Gaudet. In Quebec City—Saguenay—Côte-Nord, maybe Quebec
City lawyer and twice-candidate Jean Beaupré, or former Director of Government relations at
Université Laval Martine Gaudreault. In Chaudière-Appalaches—Gaspésie, likely
former MNA and lawyer Nancy Charest.In Outaouais—Abitibi—Nord, maybe Marcel
Proulx or Steve MacKinnon or Cindy
Duncan McMillan. On Montreal Island, one fewer, but of course, on the votes cast in 2008 it would
have been two more.

In Atlantic Canada one fewer Liberal
MP would have been elected. One more in New Brunswick: maybe former MP Brian
Murphy. One fewer in Nova Scotia and PEI.

So at most three of the sitting MPs,
on the votes cast in 2011, could have lost. While about 32 more would have won.

Fair
Vote Canada says“Never should citizens be denied representation simply
because their preferred candidate cannot win a single-member riding.”Once every vote counts, voters will be
free to vote for their real first choice, and more voters will find it
worthwhile to vote. Turnout is 5 to 6 points higher
in countries where the electoral system is proportional.

Mixed Member System

The Law Commission recommended a mixed member
system. We still elect
local MPs. Voters unrepresented by the local results elect regional MPs. This
tops up the local results so the total MPs match the vote share. Fair Vote
Canada says “The supporters of all candidates and political
parties must be fairly represented in our legislatures in proportion to votes
cast.”

You have two votes

The Jenkins
Commission called for a moderate mixed member system. You have two votes. With
one, you help elect a local MP as we do today. With the other, you also help elect
a few regional MPs to top-up the local results so that every vote counts: it’s
proportional. You can vote for the regional candidate you prefer: it’s
personal. The local MP is elected by a preferential ballot. So it’s
proportional, personal and preferential, just as Stéphane Dion wants.Call it P3-MMP.It still provides accountability,
stability and territoriality.

Competing MPs

Fair
Vote Canada says “We must give
rural and urban voters in every province, territory and regional community
effective votes and fair representation in both government and opposition.”The Jenkins-inspired model would give
citizens of regions across Canada competing MPs: a local MP, and a few regional
MPs from a “top-up region” based in their area. A typical region would have
eight MPs: five local, three regional “top-up.” Generally, five of today’s
ridings become three larger local ridings. Each province still has the same
number of MPs it has today. No constitutional amendmentis needed.

Moderately proportional

Moderate?
With top-up regions averaging eight MPs, on the votes cast in 2011 Green Party
voters would likely have elected six MPs. That’s better than the one they actually
elected, but fewer than the full 11 they deserved. But once every vote counts, discouraged
Green voters will turn out. (See Technical Notes below for how
many the Greens could have won.)

And then
again, if there was a legal threshold of 5% in each province,
under any proportional system the 2011 Green voters would have elected no MPs
from Ontario and Nova Scotia, so the Green Party would have no more than five
MPs.

The Jenkins
Commission recommended that your second vote should let you choose either a
party or one of the regional candidates nominated by parties. “They should
therefore be what are commonly called open rather than closed lists.” The
result is that all MPs have faced the voters, and no one is guaranteed a seat.

With two votes, you can vote for the party you want
in government. And you can also vote for the local candidate you like best
regardless of party, without hurting your party, since it's the second
(regional) ballot that determines the party make-up of the legislature. About
32% of voters split their ballots this way in New Zealand with a similar
system.

This makes it easier for local MPs to get the support of people of all
political stripes. They can earn support for their constituency-representation
credentials, not just for their party. This boosts the kind of support MPs
bring with them into the House of Commons, thus strengthening their
independence.

Fair Vote Canada says “A democratic
voting system must encourage citizens to exercise positive choice by voting for
the candidate or party they prefer.”

Who would those regional MPs be? First, each party would hold
regional nomination meetings and/or vote online to nominate their regional
candidates. These would often be the same people nominated locally, plus a few
additional regional candidates. The
meeting would decide what rank order each would have on the regional ballot.
But then voters in the region would have the final choice.

Preferential

The
Jenkins Commission said the preferential ballot for local MPs “would enable voters to express their second
and sometimes third or fourth preferences, and thus free them from”
strategic voting, and “lead to more
consensual and less confrontational politics.” However, “on its own the preferential ballot would be
unacceptable because of the danger that it might increase rather than reduce
disproportionality.” Indeed, in the 2011 election in Quebec, where the
majority of both federalists and Bloc voters told pollsters the NDP was their
second choice, it would have increased the NDP sweep of Quebec. A simulation of
the 2011 election shows five more Quebec NDP MPs (three gains from the Bloc,
one each from the Liberals and Conservatives). That’s using a poll by EKOS just before the election.

However,
the “top-up” regions will correct most of this. As compared with perfect
Quebec-wide proportionality, the simulation’s final result is an NDP bonus of two and a Conservative bonus of one,
two gains from the Bloc, and one from the Liberals.

Preferential balloting in single-member
ridings, on its own, does not yield results that accurately reflect voter
intentions. This still violates the democratic principle of equal
representation for every voter, just like any winner-take-all system.The
preferential ballot in
single-member ridings has never led
to proportional representation anywhere in the world. AsDion says “Preferential voting . . .
does nothing to correct the distortion between votes and seats and the
under-representation of national parties compared to regional ones. Other
changes are needed to find a voting system that best fits the Canadian context.”

As Prof. Dennis Pilon says: "Now keep in mind that, when you change the voting system, you also change the incentives that affect the kinds of decisions that voters might make. For instance, we know that, when every vote counts, voters won't have to worry about splitting the vote, or casting a strategic vote. Thus, we should expect that support for different parties might change."

And when every vote counts, turnout will be higher -- perhaps 7% higher. So, when voters have more choice, the results will be far more representative of our diverse population and their diverse views.Who can say what would be the result of real democratic elections?

One thing we know for sure: it is extremely unlikely that voters would vote exactly as they did in 2011.

Meanwhile, I’ve done projections on the votes cast in 2011.

Simulation outcome

Of the 338 MPs to be elected in 2015 (using the
votes cast in 2011, transposed by Elections Canada to the new boundaries),
under our skewed winner-take-all system Conservative voters would elect 188
MPs, NDP voters 109 MPs, Liberals 36 MPs, Bloc four, Greens one.

With this Jenkins-inspired model, the “top-up” regions will correct most of this. In about
41 or 42 regions across Canada, voters would elect about 201 or 203 local MPs,
and about 135 or 137 regional MPs.

From
a simulation of the MPs to be elected in 2015 (using the votes cast in 2011),
the distortions from perfect proportionality are just what we would expect from
“moderate proportionality.” Across Canada, Conservative voters would elect 144 MPs (compared to the
perfectly proportional result of 140). NDP voters would elect 108 (not 104),
Liberal voters the correct 64, Bloc voters 16 (not 19), and Green voters 6 (not 11).

Accountable MPs

Any
proportional system will work well for Canada’s three major metropolitan
regions based on Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, which will elect of 119 of
Canada’s 338 MP in 2015. But this Jenkins-style model would let voters fairly
elect the other 219 MPs, in a total of 41 “top-up regions” across Canada.

Ontario
could have 14 regions: one based in Ottawa, one for Hamilton—Niagara, one for Waterloo—Wellington—Brant—Oxford,
one for London—Windsor, one for Northern Ontario, one in the Simcoe—Dufferin—Bruce
area, and one in the Kingston—Peterborough—Cornwall area. The GTA’s 55 MPs
could be in seven regions.

BC
could have a region for the Interior and one for Vancouver Island, while the 26
MPs from the Lower Mainland could be from three regions.

Alberta’s
10 MPs from Calgary could be six local, four city-wide “top-up”. Other regions
could be nine from Edmonton, eight from South and Central Alberta, and seven from
North Alberta.

Winnipeg’s
eight MPs could be five local, three city-wide “top-up.” Manitoba’s six other
MPs could be four local, two regional “top-up.”

Saskatchewan
could have seven MPs from the south half, seven from the north half.

Quebec’s 78 MPs could be fromten
regions,
such as East and West
Montreal, Laval—Montreal-nord, Longueuil—Suroît, Laurentides—Lanaudière,
Outaouais—Abitibi—Nord, Montérégie-est—Estrie, Mauricie—Centre-du-Québec,
Quebec City—Saguenay—Côte-Nord, and Chaudière-Appalaches—Gaspésie.

In
Atlantic Canada, the “top-up region” is the whole province.

With
some models, in order to keep local representation, we keep two-thirds of MPs
local. But this may not be enough for fully proportional results. However, with
smaller regions, we can have 60% local MPs and 40% regional MPs.The Jenkins Report
recommended 8.25 MPs per region. In Canada, my simulation uses regions
ranging in size from seven MPs to ten MPs, plus two six-MP regions and two
11-MP regions. I used 41 regions for 335 MPs (plus three single MPs from the
Territories). Outside PEI, they average 8.27MPs
each, giving more local accountability: 201 local MPs and 134 regional MPs, 40%
regional.

These regions would still be large enough that every
major party would be represented in almost every region. In the simulation, we
see a handful of exceptions. Due to the Liberal weakness in 2011, Liberal
voters elect no MP among the nine from the BC Interior, the seven from
Vancouver Island, the seven from North Alberta, the seven from Saskatoon--North
Saskatchewan, and the six from Manitoba outside Winnipeg. And NDP voters elect
no MP among the four from Prince Edward Island. But overall, Liberal voters
would still elect 64 MPs, the same number perfect province-wide
proportionality would have given them.

Conservative voters
would have elected two MPs in Montréal-ouest, one in Montreal-est, one in Laval—Montreal-nord,
one in Longueuil—Suroît, one in Laurentides—Lanaudière, one in Outaouais—Abitibi—Nord,
one in Montérégie-est—Estrie, one in Mauricie—Centre-du-Québec, three (two more
than today) in Quebec City—Saguenay—Côte-Nord, and still two in Chaudière-Appalaches—Gaspésie;
as well as two in Toronto Centre, and an extra MP in each of Vancouver Island,
Northern Ontario, and PEI.

Green Party voters would have elected an MP in Nova Scotia, Simcoe—Dufferin—Bruce,
Calgary, Vancouver—Richmond—Delta, the BC Interior, and Vancouver Island.

Power to the voters

An exciting prospect: voters have new power to elect who they like. New voices
from new forces in Parliament, more voter choice. No one party rolls the dice
and wins an artificial majority. Cooperation will have a higher value than
vitriolic rhetoric. One-party dominance by the Prime Minister’s office will, at
last, be out of fashion. Governments will have to listen to MPs, and MPs will
have to really listen to the people. MPs can begin to act as the public
servants they are supposed to be.

Diversity

Clearly this would allow fair representation
of Canada’s political diversity in each region. As Stéphane Dion says “I do
not see why we should maintain a voting system that makes our major parties
appear less national and our regions more politically opposed than they really
are.”

In 2011 across Canada it took 35,147 votes to
elect a Conservative MP, yet 129,310 Liberal voters in Alberta
elected no one. Nor did Metropolitan
Montreal’s 222,396 Conservative voters. Nor did 147,214 NDP voters in
Saskatchewan.

Would this model also help reflect in Parliament the diversity of society, removing barriers to the nomination and election of candidates from groups now underrepresented including women,
cultural minorities and Aboriginals? Polls show that 90% of Canadian voters would like to see more women elected. If they can choose from several of their party's regional
candidates, they'll almost certainly elect more women. And as long as a party is nominating at least five regional candidates, you can expect them tonominate a diverse group. With three regional MPs from a region, and five local MPs, a major party would want more than five regional candidates, since any candidates who win local seats are removed from contention for regional seats.

No central party direction

The models in Ontario and PEI which failed referendums had closed province-wide lists for the
additional “top-up” MPPs. This failure was no surprise to the Jenkins
Commission. Jenkins said top-up MPs locally anchored to small areas are
“more easily assimilable into the political culture and indeed the
Parliamentary system than would be a flock of unattached birds clouding the sky
and wheeling under central party directions.”

Technical notes

Liberal voters in BC deserved two more MPs than this model gives them.
(They get a bonus seat in Quebec, and take Yukon, breaking even nationally.) But
those BC Liberal voters left unrepresented by the 2011 votes would have
elected an MP with a few more votes: 2,100 more in the BC Interior, and 6,140 more
on Vancouver Island.

Other Liberal voters left unrepresented by the 2011 votes would
have elected an MP with a few more votes: Just 1,500 more Liberal voters
in North Alberta would have taken a seat from the Conservatives. Just 400 more in
Manitoba outside Winnipeg would have elected a Liberal MP. So would 4,600 more in
Saskatoon—North Saskatchewan.

Green Party voters will elect more MPs
when every vote counts, and more discouraged Green voters vote. This
moderate model simulation elects only one Green Calgary MP from Alberta, not
the two Alberta MPs they deserved in 2011.But, if discouraged Green
Party voters had cast just 6,500 more Green votes in Edmonton, they
would have elected an MP. That’s only a 1.6% increase in the Green vote.

In Ontario, this simulation elects only one Green MP (maybe Ard Van
Leeuwen, Emma Hogbin or Erich Jacoby-Hawkins), giving the Conservatives and NDP
two bonus MPs each. But 3,000 more Green voters in Mid-East Ontario
(Kingston—Peterborough—Cornwall) would have elected a Green MP such as Mary
Slade from Leeds County or Ralph Torrie from Northumberland, taking a seat from
the Conservatives. Another 1,600 Green voters in Waterloo—Wellington—Brant—Oxford
would have elected an MP there, such as Guelph’s John Lawson or Waterloo’s Cathy
MacLellan. Another 6,700 Green votes in Central Toronto would have elected a
Green MP such as Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu or Ellen Michelson, taking a seat from
the NDP. Another 9,400 in Hamilton—Niagara would have elected a Green MP such
as Peter Ormond from Hamilton or Jennifer Mooradian from St. Catharines, taking
a seat from the Conservatives. Those four ridings need an increase of
only 1.2% in the Green vote.

The
rounding method used in the simulation is highest remainder, for the same
reason the Ontario Citizens Assembly chose it: it's the simplest. It is
essential if voters for smaller parties like the Greens are to elect their fair
share of MPs. Germany used to use this too, on the premise that it offset the
risk to proportionality of the 5% threshold. Similarly it offsets this model's
eight-MP region size.

The
Jenkins Commission recommended that the right to nominate candidates for
regional top-up seats should be limited to those parties which have candidates
standing for election in at least half of the ridings within the top-up region.
This prevents a possible
distortion of the system by parties pretending to split into twin
decoy parties for the regional seats, the trick which Berlusconi invented to
sabotage Italy’s voting system.

Fair Vote Canada says“Never
should citizens be denied representation simply because their preferred
candidate cannot win a single-member riding.” Once every vote counts,
voters will be free to vote for their real first choice. More voters will find
it worthwhile to vote. Turnout is 5 to 6 points higher in countries where the
electoral system is proportional, says research published by Elections
Canada.

Mixed Member System

The Law Commission recommended a mixed member system. We still elect local
MPs. Voters unrepresented by the local results elect regional MPs. This tops up
the local results so the total MPs match the vote share.

You can cast a personal vote for the regional
candidate you prefer. The region is small enough that the regional MPs are
accountable: it’s personal.

You have two votes

You have two votes. With your first, you help elect a local MP as we do
today. With the second, you also help elect a few regional MPs to top-up the
local results so that every vote counts: it’s proportional.

Competing MPs

You have competing MPs: a local MP, and a few regional MPs from a
“top-up region” based in their area. Scotland uses regions of 16 MPs, Wales 12.
In Canada a typical region would have 11 to 14 MPs: seven to nine local plus
four or five regional “top-up.” Generally, eight present ridings become
five larger ridings, or nine become six. Local ridings are usually 50% or 60% bigger than today.

Fair Vote Canada says “We must give rural and urban voters in
every province, territory and regional community effective votes and fair
representation in both government and opposition.”

With top-up regions of 11 to 14 MPs each, the results are very
close to perfect proportionality. Similarly, the New Brunswick Commission on Legislative Democracy also
recommended regions of 14 MLAs, nine local and five regional.

Fair Vote Canada says “The supporters of all candidates and political
parties must be fairly represented in our legislatures in proportion to votes
cast.”

Back in 2007, Ontario voters did not support a
proposal for the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system modelled on the one
used in Germany and New Zealand, with closed lists. But this recommendation is
for a Personal MMP model.

The Law Commission recommended that your second vote should let you
choose either a party or one of the regional candidates nominated by parties.
If that candidate is a party candidate, this vote counts as a vote for your
party. This is commonly called “open list” rather than “closed list.” The
parties' regional votes are then counted to give the level of support for each
party in the region. The result is that all MPs have faced the voters, and no
one is guaranteed a seat.

The Law Commission said "Based on the feedback received during our
consultation process, many Canadian voters would also most likely desire the
flexibility of open lists in a mixed member proportional system. In essence,
allowing voters to choose a candidate from the list provides voters with the
ability to select a specific individual and hold them accountable for their
actions should they be elected."

No central party direction

The models in Ontario and PEI which failed referendums had closed
province-wide lists for the additional “top-up” MPPs. This
failure was no surprise to the Jenkins Commission. Jenkins said top-up MPs locally
anchored to small areas are “more easily assimilable into the political culture
and indeed the Parliamentary system than would be a flock of unattached birds
clouding the sky and wheeling under central party directions.”

Local MPs become more independent

With two votes, you can vote for the party you want in government. And
you can also vote for the local candidate you like best regardless of party,
without hurting your party, since it's the second (regional) ballot that
determines the party make-up of the legislature. About 32% of voters split
their ballots this way in New Zealand with a similar system.

This makes it easier for local MPs to get the support of people of all
political stripes. They can earn support for their constituency-representation
credentials, not just for their party. This boosts the kind of support MPs
bring with them into the House of Commons, thus strengthening their
independence.

Power to the voters
An exciting prospect: voters have new power to elect who they like. New voices
from new forces in Parliament, more voter choice. No one party rolls the dice
and wins an artificial majority. Cooperation will have a higher value than
cheerleading or vitriolic rhetoric. One-party dominance by the Prime Minister’s
office will, at last, be out of fashion. Governments will have to listen to
MPs, and MPs will have to really listen to the people. MPs can begin to act as
the public servants they are supposed to be.

Diverse voices

In
2015 across Canada it took 37,733 votes to elect a Liberal MP, yet in Alberta
it took 118,354 votes to elect each of the four Liberal MPs, and in
Saskatchewan 131,681 Liberal voters elected only Ralph Goodale. It took 56,703 voters to elect a Conservative
MP, yet in Metropolitan Montreal 240,074 Conservative voters elected no one,
nor did 249,136 in Atlantic Canada.

Similarly,
in 2011 it took 35,147 votes to elect a Conservative MP, yet 129,310
Liberal voters in Alberta elected no one. Nor did Metropolitan Montreal’s
222,396 Conservative voters. Nor did 147,214 NDP voters in Saskatchewan.

As Stéphane Dion says “I
do not see why we should maintain a voting system that makes our major parties
appear less national and our regions more politically opposed than they really
are.”

Choosing regional MPs

Who would those regional MPs be? First, each party would hold regional
nomination meetings and/or vote online to nominate their regional candidates.
These would often be the same people nominated locally, plus a few additional
regional candidates. The meeting would decide what rank order each would have
on the regional ballot. But then voters in the region would have the final
choice.

Fair Vote Canada says “A democratic voting system must encourage
citizens to exercise positive choice by voting for the candidate or party they
prefer.”

As Prof. Dennis Pilon says: "Now
keep in mind that, when you change the voting system, you also change the
incentives that affect the kinds of decisions that voters might make. For
instance, we know that, when every vote counts, voters won't have to worry
about splitting the vote, or casting a strategic vote. Thus, we should expect
that support for different parties might change."

And when every vote counts, turnout will be
higher -- perhaps 7% higher. So, when
voters have more choice, the results will be far more representative of our
diverse population and their diverse views.Who can say what would be the
result of real democratic elections?

One thing we know for sure: it is extremely
unlikely that voters would vote exactly as they did in 2015 or in 2011.

Meanwhile, I’ve done projections on the votes cast
in 2015 and 2011.

Simulation outcome

On
the votes cast in 2011 (transposed by Elections Canada to the new boundaries),
of the 338 MPs to be elected in 2015, under our skewed winner-take-all system
Conservative voters would elect 188 MPs, NDP voters 109 MPs, Liberals 36 MPs,
Bloc four, Greens one. On this projection Conservative voters would have elected
139 of those 338 MPs, very close to the perfectly proportional result (140).
NDP voters would elect 108 (not 104), Liberal voters the correct 64, Bloc
voters 17 (not 19), Green voters 10 (not 11, not counting Quebec Green votes
who were below 3%). (As recommended by the Law Commission, the Territories
would have two MPs each, making 341 MPs in total: 140 Conservatives, 108 NDP,
Liberals 66, Bloc 17, Greens 10.)

On
the votes actually cast in 2015, on this projection 142 Liberal voters would
have elected 142 MP, Conservatives 105, NDP 72, Bloc 15, Green 4.

Accountable MPs

In order to keep local representation, we keep an average of 62% of all MPs
as local MPs, at least 58% in each region.

The “top-up regions” would range in size from six MPs to 15. Outside
Newfoundland & Labrador and PEI, the top-up regions would average 11 MPs each;
mostly between 9 and 14. That means 32 regions for 335 MPs (plus the
Territories). In all, the 335 are 210 local MPs and 125 regional
MPs, 37% regional.

Many people want all MPs accountable to real communities, or as Jenkins put it, locally
anchored to small areas. Scarborough voters should not be represented by an
MP from Etobicoke.

Ontario
could have ten regions, such as: one for Central Toronto—Scarborough with 12
MPs, one for North York—Etobicoke with 13 MPs, one for York—Durham Regions with
15 MPs, and one for Peel—Halton with 16. Northern Ontario could keep its nine
MPs (six local MPs, three regional MPs), Southwestern Ontario (London—Windsor) could
have 11 MPs, West Central Ontario (Barrie—Bruce—Guelph) with 10 MPs, South
Central Ontario (Hamilton—Waterloo—Niagara) with 16 MPs, the Ottawa Valley
(Ottawa—Cornwall) with 10 MPs, and Central East (Kingston—Peterborough) with
nine MPs.

BC could have four regions: one for Vancouver—Burnaby—North Shore—Maple
Ridge, one for Surrey—Richmond—Abbotsford—Langley, one for the Interior, and
one for Vancouver Island.

Alberta could have three regions: one for metropolitan Edmonton’s 11
MPs, one for metropolitan Calgary’s 11 MPs, and one for Southern and Northern
Alberta’s 12 MPs.

Manitoba
could let Winnipeg keep its eight MPs, and the rest of Manitoba keep its six MPs
(four local MPs, two regional MPs).

In Saskatchewan and Atlantic Canada, the “top-up region” is
the whole province.

Every vote counts

On
this projection, in the votes cast in 2015, 1,388,076 Liberal voters now
unrepresented or under-represented would have elected 14 more MPs in western
Canada and even in southwest and west-central Ontario.

In
2011 Liberal voters, even on the low 2011 vote, would have elected MPs in almost
all the regions where they were shut out in 2011: the three regions of Alberta,
the five regions of Quebec off Montreal Island,
Surrey—Richmond—Abbotsford—Langley in BC, and Peel—Halton,
Hamilton—Niagara—Brant, Southwestern Ontario and Northern Ontario.

NDP voters in 2011 would have elected MPs where they were shut out: in
York—Durham, Peel—Halton, Central East Ontario, Central West Ontario,
Saskatchewan, Calgary, and South and North Alberta.

Green
Party voters in 2011 would have elected an MP in Nova Scotia, Central Toronto—Scarborough,
Peel—Halton, the Ottawa Valley, West Central Ontario, Calgary,
Vancouver—Burnaby—North Shore—Maple Ridge, Surrey—Richmond—Abbotsford—Langley,
and the BC Interior.

Conservative
voters in 2011 would have elected six Quebec MPs in regions where they were
shut out.

Diversity

Clearly this would allow fair representation of Canada’s political
diversity in each region.

Would this model also help reflect in Parliament the diversity of
society, removing barriers to the nomination and election of candidates from
groups now underrepresented including women, cultural minorities and
Aboriginals? Polls show that 90% of Canadian voters would like to see more
women elected. If they can choose from several of their party's regional
candidates, they'll almost certainly elect more women. And as long as a party
is nominating at least five regional candidates, you can expect them to nominate a diverse group.
With five regional MPs from a region, and nine local MPs, a major party would
want more than five regional candidates, since any candidates who win local
seats are removed from contention for regional seats.

This model was described in more detail by Prof.
Henry Milner at an electoral reform conference Feb. 21, 2009, where he
recommended 14-MP regions. A comparable "open-list" model is used in
the German province of Bavaria and was proposed by Scotland's Arbuthnott
Commission in 2006.

The Commission's "demonstration model" is NOT their recommendation.
The Law Commission says their recommendation's inspiration is Scotland and
Wales, which have "top-up" regions with 16 MPs (Scotland) and 12 MPs
(Wales). To show how the calculation method worked, their "demonstration
model" showed Quebec in only two regions, Ontario in only three, and BC
and Alberta as single regions, making regions with about 35 MPs each, with at
least 12 regional MPs. But then they said voters should be able to vote for the
regional candidate they prefer. That would be a "bed-sheet ballot"
with such large regions. So actually, Canada would likely have regions no larger than about 14
MPs: nine local, five regional "top-up." More accountable.

These
32 regions are large enough that every major party would be represented in
almost every region. In the simulation, we see only two exceptions in 2015: Conservative
voters would have elected no MP from Outaouais—Abitibi-Témiscamingue—Nord, nor
NDP voters from PEI.

And
in 2011, due to the Liberal weakness that year, Liberal voters would have elected
no MP among the nine from the BC Interior (but another 2,100 votes would have
done it) and the seven from Vancouver Island (where 6,200 more Liberal voters
would have elected an MP), and NDP voters elect no MP among the four from
Prince Edward Island.

The rounding method used in the simulation is highest remainder, for the
same reason the Ontario Citizens Assembly chose it: it's the simplest. Germany
used to use this too, on the premise that it offset the risk to proportionality
of the 5% threshold. Similarly it offsets any small region sizes like Vancouver
Island.

The Law Commission recommended that the right to nominate candidates for
regional top-up seats should be limited to those parties which have candidates
standing for election in at least one-third of the ridings within the top-up
region. This prevents a possible distortion of the system by parties pretending
to split into twin decoy parties for the regional seats, the trick which
Berlusconi invented to sabotage Italy’s voting system.

About Me

Although I am a member of Fair Vote Canada's Council at the federal level, the views expressed on this blog are my own.
I have been a lawyer since 1971, an elected school trustee from 1982 to 1994, past chair of the Board of the Northumberland Community Legal Centre, and so on.